SK 353 
Copy 1 



BULLETIN 

01 ! II! 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



No 

\ni! ( Series N 



The Protection of Our X a five Birds 



BY 



Thos. II. Montgomery , Jr. 

Prtfossor ofZotltgy 




■l math r a t tin . 



PUBLICATIONS S 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



BOARD OF EDITORS 

William James Battle, Editor-in-Chief. 
Herbert Eugene Bolton, Secretary and Manager. 

Killts Campbell, The University Record. 
William Spencer Carter, Galveston, Medical Series. 
Lindley M. Keasbey, Humanistic Series. 
Thomas H. Montgomery, Jr., Scientific Series. 
Piiineas L, Windsor, General Series. 

The publications of the University of Texas are issued twice a month. 
For postal purposes they are numbered consecutively as Bulletins without 
regard to the arrangement in series. With the exception of the Special 
Numbers any Bulletin will be sent to citizens of Texas free on request. 
Communications in reference to exchange of publications should be ad- 
dressed to the Librarian of the University. 



364-2OO7-S06-1M 



BULLETIN 

OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS 



No. 79 

Scientific Series No. 8 



The Protection of Our Native Birds 



BY 



Thos. H. Montgomery, Jr. 

Professor of Zoology 




Entered as second-claw mail matter at the poatoffice at Austin. Texas 
October 1, 1906, 



#£* 



OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. 

A. Reasons for Protection p 

I. Agricultural Value ' p 

a. Birds with the Exclusive of the Hawks and 

Owls p 

b. The Hawks and Owls p 

II. Value as Preventers of Disease p 

III. Aesthetic Value p 

15. Data on the Destruction of Birds p 

I. Destruction for Food and Sport p 

II. Destruction of Eggs p 

III. Destruction for Millinery Purposes p 

C. Means of Protection of Birds p 

D. Literature p 



9 Ap'07 



4 
4 

4 

12 

15 
16 

i/ 
18 

19 
21 

24 
29 



THE PROTECTION OF OUR NATIVE BIRDS. 

TIK )S. I!. MONTQ >MERY, Jr. 
I 'n tfessi >r i >f Zo< »1« >gj . 

The protection of our native birds is a subject thai lias been 
treated many times and from i variety of points of view. But 
it is a matter of such economic importance, particularly to agri- 
culturists, that it can net be too often brought to the attention 
of the reasoning public. For it is truly surprising how much 
ignorance about birds obtains with those who would greatly 
benefit by some accurate knowledge. Especially in Texas has 
there has been very little agitation for their protection. 

Congress recognized the necessity of such protection by estab- 
lishing a Section of Economic Ornithology in 1885, as a branch 
of the Department of Agriculture, and in 1896 enlarged its scope 
by expanding it into the Division of the Biological Survey. Under 
the able direction of Dr. Merriam a great amount of important 
work has been done by this Survey, with the help of a corps of 
competent assistants, and a series of valuable reports has been 
issued upon the food relations of birds. Further examination of 
the questions has been carried on by several of the States, notablv 
Massachusetts, Illinois and Pennsylvania, all of which has em- 
phasized the incalculable economic value of the birds, and this 
has again been supported by the private studies of many natur- 
alists. 

My own observations commenced in 1885. twenty years ago, 
when I entered in my ornithological diaries the data of the con- 
tents of many stomachs of bird:,, from personal examinations, so 
that I convinced myself of the economic value of birds before I 
had become acquainted with any of the literature, and indeed at a 
time when there was but little published on the subject. Work 
along very different lines of research has drawn me awav from 
these earlier studies, but I have continued to realize the value of 
the subject, and it is now a pleasure to speak for the cause of the 

j birds. 

There may be considered in succession the reason for protec- 

fc^,tion, the data on destruction, and the means of protection. 



4 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

A — Reasons for Protection. 

These may be grouped under the main heads of value of birds 
to agriculture, value as disease preventers, value from the aes- 
thetic standpoint. 

/. Agricultural Value. 

The relation of birds to agriculture is one of diet, and we rank 
them as harmful or beneficial according to the food on which they 
subsist. 

While some birds ha\e a strictly specialized diet, as, for in- 
stance, the greater number of the oceanic species, others have a 
more or less mixed regimen, are more or less generalized in their 
diet, and on this account it is impossible to arrange birds into 
sharply demarcated groups according to their feeding habits. 
Then the diet ma}' vary with the season of the year. Thus, with 
many of the smaller land birds, insects compose the food during 
the hot months, wild seeds and berries during the cold season. 
Again, in many species where the adults are more or less vege- 
tarian, devouring seeds or grains, it is the general rule that the 
nestlings are fed upon insects. Highly specialized diet would 
indeed be rather the exception, for birds with such a diet would, 
perhaps, have to contend with a severer struggle for existence. 
For reasons such as these, it is difficult to establish any satisfac- 
tory classification based upon food, yet one must be made if we 
would find the relations of birds to agriculture. In the arrange- 
ment that is proposed below I have estimated as carefully as one 
may from the available statistics, and from the nature of the 
birds' habits, the average annual diet of our North American 
species. As a basis, I have taken Dr. Coues's "Key to North 
American Birds," fifth edition, 1903, wherein there are recognized 
some 932 species, geographical races excluded, as occurring on 
the continent of North America, north of the Mexican boundary, 
and including Greenland and Lower California. 

For better convenience in the following discussion, it is ad- 
visable to treat the hawks and owls separately from the other 
species. 

a. Birds with the Exclusion of the Hawks and Owls. 

These number 874 kinds. Two main dietary groups of them 
may be distinguished : those with terrestrial food, food secured on 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. 5 

the dry land and its vegetation, and in the atmosphere above it; 
and those with aquatic food, food obtained in water or in or 
upon marshy ground, such food being- aquatic or amphibious. 
Under each of these sub-groups may be established, and the 
number of species in each sub-group may be tabulated as a per- 
centage of the 874 species entered in these lists. 

(a) With terrestrial food. 

( i ) Food mainly insects 36. 7 % 

I 2 ) Food mainly wild seeds, berries, buds, but also 

insects 13.6% 

(3) Food to considerable extent cultivated grain and 

fruit 1.8% 

(4 ) Food mainly carrion 3 % 

(b) With aquatic and amphibious food. 

(5) Food mainly nsh 17.0 % 

(6) Food a combination of aquatic plants and fish. . 6.0 % 

(7) Food Crustacea, molluscs, insects, worms 8.0% 

(8) Food a combination of amphibians, reptiles, mol- 

luscs, fish 4.8% 

Each of these groups we may briefly consider by itself : 

( 1 ) In the first group, there are a large number of birds that 
are almost wholly insectivorous, such as the kinglets, titmice, nut- 
hatches, creepers, warblers, tanagers, orioles, swallows, vireos 
(greenlets), flycatchers, hummingbirds, swifts, goatsuckers; and 
others where the insect diet predominates, but where seeds, ber- 
ries and fruits are eaten at certain seasons of the year, such as the 
thrushes (including the robin and bluebird), the cedarbird, 
cuckoos, certain of the sparrows and finches (perhaps a third of 
them), the cowbirds, woodpeckers and meadow larks (field larks, 
as they are known in Texas), the shore larks and the wrens. This 
class of birds comprises some 36.7 per cent of all that we are at 
present considering, and there can be no question that all of 
them are to be vigorously protected for the interests of the farmer. 

The robins will at times destroy a certain amount of small 
garden fruits, as will the catbirds and cedarbirds ; but all feed 
their nestlings upon insects, and the diet of the adults during the 
greater portion of the year is the same. 

The name night hawk has been improperly applied to one of 



G The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

our common goatsuckers, a group that includes the whip-poor- 
will ; and because of this name alone these birds are frequently 
supposed to be pests; but an examination of the feeble bill, the 
feet that are almost :oo weak for perching, and the bristfes 
around the grape demonstrates that these birds are highly special- 
ized for catching insects on the wing. The older name of goat- 
sucker arose in Europe from the entirely baseless supposition that 
they sucked the milk from goats. 

The common field larks have been carefully studied, with the 
result of finding that their food during three-fourths of the year 
is composed of insects, notably grasshoppers, cutworms and boll 
weevils, and during the winter to large extent of the seeds of 
weeds. 

It is difficult to know exactly how to group the shrikes ~>r 
butcher birds, but there is no doubt of their economic value; Dr. 
Judd examined the stomachs of 67 specimens, and found that 26 
per cent of the food consisted of mice, 34 per cent of many small 
birds (including English sparrows), and 40 per cent of insects 
(mainly grasshoppers). 

(2) The second group consists of birds in whose regimen 
wild seeds and berries predominate, but all which destroy in- 
sects to greater or less extent. Among these are found the 
greater number of the wild sparrows and finches, the yellow- 
headed blackbirds, the magpies and jays, the pigeons, grouse and 
quail. More than half of these are species of wild sparrows, and 
these feed their young almost entirely upon insects, while the 
adults of most of them use the same food as long as it is obtain- 
able. 

But in all of these birds, insects compose a considerable portion 
of the diet, averaging perhaps a third ; so that if we add their 
number to that of the preceding class we find that quite 50 per 
cent of the 874 species that we are at present considering feed 
mainly, or to considerable extent, upon insects. In any inland 
district where aquatic birds would be few in number, as for in- 
stance in the neighborhood of San Antonio, the percentage of such 
birds would rise close to 90 per cent. 

The remainder of the food of these birds consist of wild seeds 
and berries, to a minimal extent of fruits or buds. The ele- 
ment that predominates is the seeds of weeds, and yet our farmers 
seem hardly to recognize that birds are their main weed destroy- 



The Protection of Our Native Hints. 7 

ers. Perhaps the most efficient weed destroyers are the wild 
pigeons and the quail. The common wild pigeon or dove has 
bcm proved to subsist almost entirely upon the seeds of weeds. 
Dr. Judd has shown that the quail or bob-white, at least in the 
Eastern States, destroys nearly as many weeds as do the wild 
pigeons, and that 14 per cent of its food consists of insects, 
abundant among them potato and squash beetles, boll weevils, 
chinch bugs, grasshoppers and cutworms. 

We have now briefly reviewed the two classes of birds that are 
of most value to the agriculturist, those that feed mainly or con- 
siderably upon insects. Now, a very considerable portion of the 
insects that birds eat are harmful to agriculture, in that they feed 
upon plants that man needs for his own uses. There are, to be 
sure, beneficial insects, such as the dragonflies that catch mos- 
quitoes, the numerous minute flies and wasps that parasitize other 
insects, and certain beetles that bury carrion. But by far the 
greater number of insects are vegetarian in habit, and for this 
reason all those birds that kill them should be rigorously pro- 
tected in the interests of the farmer. Then we have seen, at the 
same time, that many of these birds are useful in still another way, 
as very efficient weed destroyers. 

The main enemies of insects, next to their own diseases and 
parasites, are the birds. And we are justified in concluding, and 
it is no exaggeration, that in inland districts without the aid of 
birds agriculture would be a failure, and probably even man him- 
self could not exist in the warmer and temperate parts of the 
globe. For naturalists have long pointed out that there is a 
balance in Nature, an oscillating equilibrium between the dif- 
ferent kinds of organisms, whereby the diminution of one means 
and necessitates the increase of another. This is a biological 
phenomenon so amply substantiated that no argument is neces- 
sary for it here. All animal life depends in the long run upon 
vegetation for its food. Birds feed upon the insects that browse 
upon the vegetation. In direct proportion as the birds are deci- 
mated, the numbers of insects will increase and the cultivated 
crops suffer. There was a time in southern France when the birds 
became so reduced in numbers by thoughtless killing that for a 
succession of years the crops were failures. The Government had 
finally to step in with rigid statutes against further destruction, 
and had even to import and liberate numbers of wild birds in 



8 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

order to obviate national famine. Probably Longfellow had this 
incident in mind when he wrote his "Birds of Killingworth," a 
strong appeal that everyone should read. 

To determine how many insects are killed by an individual bird 
in a given period of time is a difficult matter and needs long-con- 
tinued observation. Most of our smaller land birds raise two 
broods of about five ycung each annually. The young grow 
rapidly, and are so constantly demanding food that usually both 
parents have to act as nurses and are continually kept going to and 
fro searching for and bringing food to their nestlings. How 
arduous this task of feeding the young is, is shown by the fact 
that just after the breeding season, toward the close of the sum- 
mer, the parents are in worn plumage and greatly weakened. In- 
deed, with their incessant food catching from sunrise to sunset, 
the parents are barely able to keep the young sufficiently supplied. 
Personally, I have examined hundreds of stomachs of our smaller 
birds, and found that each would average quite a hundred insects 
of various sizes. Particularly desired by the nestlings are those 
juicy crickets, grasshoppers and caterpillars that are so de- 
structive to vegetation. A convincing chapter bearing on this 
subject is found in the work of Weed and Dearborn, "Birds in 
Their Relations to Man." 

(3) Birds with food consisting to considerable extent of cul- 
tivated grain and fruits. Here there comes in the first place the 
common English sparrow, that songless foreigner that seems to 
have extended itself across our continent as far as the railroads 
have progressed. For two counts this bird should meet with no 
protection, but rather with the united opposition of all : first, be- 
cause it has driven away from the neighborhood of our towns the 
greater number of the smaller native species that are of agricul- 
tural value; and second, because it has become a serious menace 
to the grain fields. I have opened 78 stomachs of these birds, 
killed in Pennsylvania, and found $2 of them to contain nothing 
but grain (wheat, corn, oats), 28 to contain grain together with 
wild seeds, 16 to contain wild seeds only, 1 to contain apple blos- 
soms, and only 1 to contain insects. Much more extensive ob- 
servations have been made by others, notably those of Dr. Riley 
based upon an examination of 522 stomachs ; and there is a con- 
sensus of opinion that while the young are fed to some extent 
upon insects the adults have a diet that consists to very large 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. 9 

extent of cultivated grains, and includes the buds and fruits of 
other plants. An English ornithologist studied for a year the food 
of the English sparrow, and found, in an excerpt given by Weed 

and Dearborn, that in the adults "75 per cent of the food con- 
sisted of wheat and small grains, u> per cent of seeds of weeds, 
4 per cent of green peas, 3 per cent of beetles, 2 per cent of 
caterpillars, 1 per cent of flying insects, and 5 per cent of other 
things. During the first sixteen days of the nestlings 5 life, 40 per 
cent of the food consisted of small grains, 40 per cent of cater- 
pillars, and 10 per cent of small beetles." 

As to the common blackbird or grackle, the farmer generally 
believes he does great harm. Yet Benjamin Franklin wrote in 
1753, in a letter to Peter Collinson :* 

"Whenever we attempt to amend the scheme of Providence, 
and to interfere with the government of the world, we had need 
to be very circumspect, lest we do more harm than good. In New 
England they once thought blackbirds useless, and mischievous 
to the corn. They made efforts to destroy them. The conse- 
quence was, the blackbirds were diminished ; but a kind of worm, 
which devoured their grass, and which the blackbirds used to 
feed on, increased prodigiously ; then, finding their loss in grass 
much greater than their saving in corn, they wished again for 
their blackbirds." And 1 leal writes, as the result of numerous 
careful investigations :** 

"The total grain consumed during the year constitutes 45 per 
cent of the whole food, but it is safe to say that at least half is 
waste grain, and consequently of no value. During the breeding 
season, however, the species does much good by eating insects and 
by feeding them to its young, which are reared almost entirely 
upon this food. The bird does the greatest amount of good in 
spring, when it follows the plow in search of large grubworms." 

The crow also has his good side; his habits have been summed 
up by Barrows as follows :f 

"(1) Crows seriously damage the corn crop, and injure other 
grain crops usually to 3 less extent. (2) They damage other 



♦Franklin's Works, ed. Bigelow. 1887, IT. p. 202. 

**F. E. L. Beal. Some Common Birds in Thoir Rotation to Agriculture, 
Farmers Bulletin No. ."{. IT. S. Dept. Agric. 1904. 

fBarrows and Schwarz, The Common Crow in the United States, U. S. 
A Dept. Agric, Div. of Ornith.. Bulletin No. 6, 1895. 



10 The Protection of Our 'Native Birds. 

farm crops to some extent, frequently doing much mischief. 
(3) They are very destructive to the eggs and young of domes- 
ticated fowls. (4) They do incalculable damage to the eggs and 
young of native birds. ('5) They do much harm by the distribu- 
tion of seeds of poison-ivy, poison-sumach, and perhaps other 
noxious plants. (6) They do much harm by the destruction of 
beneficial insects. On the other hand, (1) They do much good 
by the destruction of injurious insects. (2) They are largely ben- 
eficial through their destruction of mice and other rodents. (3) 
They are valuable occasionally as scavengers." and Beal (/. c.) 
concludes: "In the more thickly settled parts of the country it 
probably does more good than harm, at least when ordinary pre- 
cautions are taken to protect young poultry and newly-planted 
corn against its depredations." 

The bobolink is the name given in the North to that bird in 
its brightest plumage which is known there in its Fall plumage as 
the reedbird, and in the South as the ricebird. During- the sum- 
mer in the North it is mainly an insect feeder, but during its- 
winter sojourn in the South it certainly does great damage to the 
rice fields. It is one of the few instances in this country of a bird 
that does good in one section and damage in another. 

The common bluejay hos a regimen much like that of the crow, 
but observations made by the Department of Agriculture have 
shown that only 18 per cent of its food is corn, that it prefers 
nuts and wild seeds to corn ; in the summer it probably destroys 
more insects than does the crow. 

Wild geese sometimes do considerable damage to grain fields 
in the Western States, during their migrations, but this is the 
case only in the more thinly-settled districts. 

The only other birds that consume grain to any marked ex- 
tent are the red-winged and yellow-headed blackbirds and the wild 
pigeons ; but grain is an unusual diet with the last-named species, 
as we have seen, and the others have been proved by their services 
as insect destroyers to be on the whole much more beneficial to the 
farmer than otherwise. On the red-winged blackbird the De- 
partment of Agriculture has made broad studies, in an examina- 
tion of 725 stomachs, which shows that some seven-eighths of its 
food consists of noxious insects and weed seeds, and grain only 
13 per cent; at occasional localities thev do considerable harm to 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. ' i i 

the rice and wheat, bu1 < ver most of their range the} arc to be 
reckoned as good friends of the fanner. 

(4) Those birds whose food is tnainl) carrion we will con 

sider in another place. 

(5) Those birds that have a diet consisting mainh of fish arc 
the kingfishers, mergansers (sea ducks), gannets, pelicans, cor- 
morants, snake birds, frigate birds, jaegers, gulls and terns, alba- 
trosses and petrels, loons, grebes and auks. The greater number 
of these are limited to the sea coasts, so that they hear little rela- 
tion to the farming industry ; but others of them are mainly inland 
in distribution, as the kingfishers, while in occasional districts oc- 
cur inland colonies of gulls, pelicans and cormorants. Perhaps none 
of these birds are to be considered particularly beneficial in point 
of diet, but at the same time it may be said that they do but little 
injury to pisciculture. For most of the fish they secure are prob- 
ably weak and immature individuals, whereby' they aid Nature 
to weed out the unfit; and, further, a considerable part of their 
regimen consists of fishes that man does not seek. 

Many fish-eating birds are infected by internal parasites that 
live also in fishes, the fish being the primary and the bird the 
secondary host of the same species of parasite; the bird infects 
itself by devouring the flesh of an infected fish, then through its 
excrement distributes the eggs of the parasite to the water again, 
the young from such eggs then entering fishes. But in this cycle 
the bird does no more harm to the fish than the fish to the bird ; 
and it is questionable whether destruction of the birds would 
materially lessen the number of fish parasites. 

Gulls and terns that breed inland replace their fish diet to con- 
siderable extent by one of insects and worms ; and in Nebraska 1 
have watched flocks of large white gulls following the furrow of 
the plough, picking up grubs and earth worms. Pelicans in simi- 
lar localities have been proved to destroy many locusts. 

(6) Another group of birds combines a diet of aquatic plants, 
stems and seeds, with molluscs, crustaceans and, perhaps to less 
extent, fish. They are those birds with a straining Hill, such as 
the flamingoes, the swans, geese and most of the ducks except the 
mergansers. All of these destroy great numbers of aquatic in- 
sects when they teed along streams and rivers while on their mi- 
grations. The water plants they eat are of little economic value, 
and the number of fish they destroy but small. All of them are 



12 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

to be ranked as rather beneficial, though, as we pointed out before, 
certain of the wild geese do damage to grain fields. 

(7) Birds whose food is a combination of insects, crustaceans, 
insects and worms, are the dipper (a bird related to the thrushes), 
the plover, surfbirds, turnstones, oyster-catchers, stilts, phalaropes, 
snipe, sandpiper and woodcock. Some of these have a slender bill 
fitted for probing in the mud and sand, but others, as the plover, 
have the lip of the bill hardened. By far the greater number of 
these birds arc restricted to the sea coasts, and most of them mi- 
grate there also; but certain of the plover, snipe and sandpipers 
breed in inland districts, and these migrate also along river 
courses. On the sea coasts the food of these birds consists mainly 
of small molluscs and Crustacea that the birds find under pebbles 
or probe out of the sand. In inland regions an insect diet pre- 
dominates ; and our commonest resident plover, the kildeer, feeds 
almost entirely upon insects. It never destroys turnips, as the 
farmers commonly suppose, but on the farms feeds upon the insects 
that are so harmful to the turnip crop. The woodcock feeds to a 
great extent upon small worms. 

(8) Finally, there is a group of amphibious birds whose diet is 
not very dissimilar from that of the preceding group, consisting 
mainly of larger organisms, such as reptiles, amphibians (frogs 
and newts') and mice an i fish, along with larger Crustacea, mol- 
luscs and worms. These are mainly birds of considerable size, 
such as the cranes, storks, herons, spoonbills, ibises and coots, with 
some of smaller size, such as the rails. They do harm by killing 
frogs, which are great insect destroyers, but counterbalance this 
by destroying wild mice and snakes. 

b. The Hawks and Owls. 

There are on our continent some 19 species of owls, and 39 
species of hawks, kites, and eagles. The average farmer con- 
siders all of these to be harmful to poultry and game, and many 
of the States had originally laws to secure their extermination. 

But Warren* pointed out the error of the farmers in this 
matter, and was largely instrumental in obtaining the repeal of 
such noxious laws. The most important contribution on the sub- 
ject is that of Fisher,** which states the results of the examination 



♦Report on the Birds of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, 1888; second revise'd 
edition, 1890. 

**The Hawks and Owls of the United States in Their Relation to Agricul- 
ture, U. S. Dept. Agric, Div. of Ornith. and Mamm., Bulletin No. 3, 1893. 



Protection of Our Native Birds. 13 

of some 2690 stomachs of these birds. For the detailed diet of 
each species, the reader must refer to the original memoir, for here 
there is space for only the general results. From Dr. Fisher's 
summaries of those stomachs that contained food, I have estimated 
the following rough percentag< - 

I Containing game birds or poultry 6 % 

( Containing mammals other than mice 15 % 

Containing mice 33 % 

( Containing birds other than poultry or game 18 % 

Containing insects 24 % 

The fewest exhibited poultry or game birds, four times as many 
contained insects, and eight times as many mice, rats, squirrels, 
gophers, rabbits, foxes and other noxious mammals. Fisher's 
general conclusions are: "(i) That owls are among the most 
beneficial of all birds, inflicting very little damage upon the poul- 
terer and conferring vast benefits upon the farmer. (2) That all 
hawks, with possibly one or two exceptions, are to some extent 
beneficial to the farmer." He finds that all the killing of game 
and poultry by hawks is done by only six species : the goshawk, 
gyrfaloon, duck hawk, fish hawk, sharp-shinned and Cooper's 
hawk ; of which the first three ?re rare in the United States, and 
the fourth present only on the coasts. These are the only hawks 
that should be placed upon the blacklist, from the standpoint of 
the poulterer, though ali of them destroy many mice. Those 
"whose beneficial and noxious qualities about balance one an- 
other" are the "golden eagle, bald eagle, pigeon hawk, Richard- 
son's hawk, aplomado, and prairie falcons;" all the other hawks 
are wholly or chiefly beneficial. The only owl whose good quali- 
ties do not far outweigh its bad ones is the great horned owl, 
"which in the East is persistent in its attacks upon poultry and 
game, in the rabbit-infested portions of the West destroys such 
immense numbers of these rodents that its assistance is invaluable 
to the farmer." 

Many of the hawks destroy more insects than any other food. 
Such is the case with the little sparrow hawk ; and Swainson's 
hawk, the most abundant large hawk in Texas, is a tremendous 
grasshopper killer, as well as a destroyer of gophers, while it ap- 
parently never touches poultry ; flocks of them are to be found 
wherever the grasshoppers are unusually numerous, for they seem 



14 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

to prefer this diet. Then in the long stretch of country on the 
coast between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, I was astonished 
at the great number of hawks, especially Harris' hawk. Mr. Seaa- 
nett wrote of its food in this region : "I found in the crops of 
those I obtained mice, lizards, birds and often the -Mexican striped 
gopher" {Bull. U. S. Geoi. and Geogr. Survey of the Territories, 
5.) ; and I have little doubt that it is the gophers that have drawn 
them to that locality in such numbers. 

All the owls, with the one exception mentioned, are to be con- 
sidered highly beneficial to the farmer, since they feed to very 
large extent upon field mice. An owl is the natural mouse trap 
of the countryside, as the cat is of the house. In this connection 
may be mentioned my own observations,* data secured not by 
killing the birds to examine their stomachs, but by collecting and. 
examining the solid pellets of hair and bones that they eject from 
the mouth after feeding. At my old home near Philadelphia I 
opened and noted the contents of every pellet dropped at the roost 
by four long-eared owls, from Christmas Day, 1898, to Febru- 
ary 22 following, with the following results : there were remains 
of 2 small birds, 1 shrew, 2 white-footed mice, 1 house mouse, and 
343 field mice; these field mice were large voles of the genus 
Microtus, that do much damage to the grass in pastures. Yet 
these were the contents cf only those pellets that they dropped at 
the daily roosting tree; doubtless they ejected quite as many 
others while on the hunt, but of these I could get no record. Then 
these beautiful birds were shot by a taxidermist ! The com- 
mon burrowing owl of Texas feeds mainly upon young prairie 
dogs, gophers, mice, lizards and insects. Of the little screech owl, 
Fisher gives the following summary : "Of 255 stomachs examined, 
1 contained poultry ; 38, other birds ; 91, mice ; 1 1, other mammals ; 
2, lizards; 4, batrachians; 1, fish; 100, insects; 5, spiders; 9, craw- 
fish ; 7, miscellaneous ; 2, scorpions ; 2, earthworms ; and 43 were 
empty." Of the large barred owl, a bird of woodland regions, 
which the farmer generally regards as harmful, Fisher states : "Of 
109 stomachs examined, 5 contained poultry or game; 13, other 
birds; 46, mice; 18, other mammals; 4, frogs; 1, a lizard; 2, fish ; 
14, insects ; 2, spiders ; 9, crawfish ; and 20 were empty." 

There can be no question that the natural enemies of the prairie 



♦Observations on Owls, with Particular Regard to Their Feeding Habits, 
American Naturalist, 33, 1899. 






The Protection of Our Native Birds. 15 

clogs, rabbits, gophers, rats and mice of this Southwestern country 
are the hawks and owls, and the farmers should know it. In 
Texas but two hawks and one species of owl are not distinctly 
beneficial, and unless the farmer is sufficiently familiar with birds 
to distinguish these from the others it would be for his best in- 
terests to avoid shooting any hawk or owl at all. Hawks are like 
uwn in that within the same species there may be bad as well as 
good individuals. To eat poultry is an acquired taste with them, 
and those few individuals that have learned it give a bad name to 
the majority that never touch thfc food. That is to say, because 
one individual hawk or owl may visit the poultry yard, we may 
not infer this to be in any way a general habit of the species; the 
farmer should shoot that harmful individual, but not enter on a 
war against the others that are killing his gophers and field mice. 
As long ago as 1882, Spencer F. Baird, one of the most prominent 
naturalists of this country, wrote (Joum. Cincinnati Soc. Nat. 
Hist., 5) : "The destruction of hawks will save an occasional fowl, 
but will cause a great increase in the abundance of field mice, 
rabbits, squirrels, snakes, frogs, etc., upon which the hawks feed. 
It has now been conclusively shown, I think, that hawks perform 
an important function in maintaining in good condition the stock 
of game birds, by capturing the weak and sickly, and thus pre- 
venting reproduction from unhealthy parents. One of the most 
plausible hypotheses explanatory of the occasional outbreaks of 
disease among the grouse of Scotland has been the extermination 
of these correctives, the disease being most virulent where the* 
game-keepers were most active in destroying what they considered 
vermin. It is my firm conviction that in the average of well- 
settled countries the hawks and cwls are a benefit rather than the 
reverse to the community in general, and to the farmer in par- 
ticular." And this is the opinion of all whose knowledge makes 
them competent judges. 

//. Value as Preventers of Disease. 

Birds aid in preventing disease by destroying carrion, as well 
as by killing disease-transmitting insects. 

The vultures, the black vulture, turkey buzzard, and California 
vulture, rank first as destroyers of refuse; the last of these is now 
nearly, if not quite, extinct. For many years in many of the 



10 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

cities of the South the turkey buzzards and black vultures con- 
stituted the only efficient health departments, and in some they are 
still the most active, destroying the filth thrown out into the streets. 
Their value in doing away with the putrefying carcasses can 
hardly be estimated, and there can be little question that they 
prevent much contamination by this act. There seems now to be 
some evidence that these birds may transmit the germs of cattle 
fever, but we should be cautious about deciding to kill them on 
that account. The case must first be proved more definitely 
against them; and next, it must be decided whether the harm 
they do ; n this way outweighs the good they accomplish in re- 
moving decomposing matter. For, though they may transmit 
disease to cattle, they unquestionably help in checking the sources 
of certain human disorders. 

The Mexican eagle, or caracara, common along the southern 
border of Texas, is also an important carrion destroyer and it and 
the road -runner (chaparral cock, paisano bird) are our most ef- 
ficient snake killers. In the same way the gulls prevent the accu- 
mulation of refuse in our harbors. The crow is also a scavenger. 

Studies of the past fifteen years have demonstrated that mos- 
quitoes are the transmitters of malaria and yellow fever, the tsetse 
fly of Africa of the fatal sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis), and 
house flies of typhoid and probably other diseases. Swallows, 
swifts, flycatchers and warblers are the most efficient destrovers 
of flies, as the crepuscular night-hawks and whip-poor-wills of 
mosquitoes. There has yet to be undertaken the study of birds as 
preventers of human disorders. 

///. Aesthetic Value. 

The argument from the standpoint of the beauty and charm of 
birds can appeal only to those of refined sensibilities, those with 
a mind recipient of the beauty in the living world. Even the man 
who prides himself upun his hard-headed common-sense must 
grant that he would miss the songs of birds were the present 
destruction of birds to continue. People are learning more and 
more to spend their vacation seasons further from the popular 
resorts, and if they analyze their motives in doing so they will 
find it is as much on account of the less disturbed natural sur- 
roundings as of the greater rest and quiet. Of all animals, the 



The I'rotection of Our NaUvi Birds, 17 

birds appeal to us most strongly because most of them are active 
in the daytime, most are bright-colored, and especially because 
the) are die only animals with complicated songs. They are the 
most neighborly of all creatures, the most winning. Whether one 
hears the early song of the robin upon the lawn, or the cooling, 
delicious notes of the canyon wren in a wild ravine of the moun- 
tain desert, he may find pleasure and learn that despite human 
cares there is happiness in Nature as well as a struggle for exist- 
ence, and relief in the return to Nature. Is it not our boast that 
every home has its honeysuckle vine, and that upon every honey- 
suckle there sings a mockingbird? Indeed, the greater extent 
of this State would be dull and sombre without the refreshing 
songs that spring from the chaparral, and the nights saddening 
without the soft call of the whip-poor-will. Many profess a con- 
tempt or indifference for such things, and they are to be pitied ; 
but even such men would miss them were they removed. 

For the same aesthetic reason that America has protected the 
Yellowstone Park, and is now agitating to prevent the demolition 
of Niagara Falls, bird life also should be protected. 

B. Data on the Destruction of Birds. 

Everyone who has watched attentively the wild birds of a 
given locality has observed that the number of them, or at 
least of certain of them, decreases as the human population swells. 
I have convinced my sell of this fact for the region of Chester 
County, Pennsylvania, where much of my time was given to field 
observations of birds from 1885 to 1903; there it was particularly 
noticeable in the case of the blackbirds. and wild pigeons (mourn- 
ing doves), the red-tailed hawk and great blue heron, the red- 
headed woodpeckers and bluebirds ; and doubtless it was the case 
also with most of the smaller birds whose numerical proportions 
are more difficult to estimate. 

Among the American birds that have become extinct within 
historic times are the great auk and Labrador duck ; the pas- 
senger pigeon, which, according to the accounts of the pioneer 
ornithologists, particularly Catesbv, Wilson and Audubon, for- 
merly occurred in flocks numbering each many million individ- 
uals, is now almost extinct ; the Carolina parroquet, the ivory-billed 
woodpecker, the great California vulture, the golden eagle, and 
others, have nearly reached extinction on this continent. 



IS The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

This naturally leads us to ask, what are the main agencies in 
such decimation? 

On the one hand, there are the natural causes. The most 
powerful of these are parasites and disease epidemics. Certain 
birds, particularly those of carnivorous diet, are more or less in- 
fected with serious internal parasites within the intestinal tract 
and in other parts of the body ; then nearly each species has its 
peculiar ectoparasitic forms, notably insects of the group of the 
Mallophaga. The presence of malaria, tuberculosis and other 
diseases has been constated for a number of species. Then there 
is destruction by other natural sources, particularly cats and 
snakes, climatic severities, the. wasting of breeding and feeding 
grounds by forest and prairie fires ; and all those agencies that 
constitute the hard struggle for food. All these are the natural 
checks to the undue increase of individuals ; they seem to occasion 
annual fluctuations of the number within a species, but they tend 
also to keep the number within a more or less constant ratio and 
probably rarely produce rapid extinction. In other words. Nature 
may be trusted to keep her own proper equilibrium. 

On the other hand, there is the agency of man in causing deci- 
mation of the wild animals around him ; and nis attacks have gen- 
erally far severer consequences than those we have just men- 
tioned. Such destruction we are in a position to check. We may 
here consider briefly its more important forms. 

/. Destruction for Food and Sport. 

In any more or less cultivated country man has no need to kill 
wild animals for food, because for his meats he raises cattle and 
poultry. 

But man continues to have a strong hunting propensity, per- 
haps most developed in the Anglo-Saxon, and finds a keen delight 
in the chase. In this way it comes about that he classes certain of 
the larger birds as game, those that are good to eat and require 
skill and hunter's craft to procure. This taste for hunting is an 
old one, healthful and natural ; it is really not a love of the killing 
so much as a pleasure in the excitement of the chase. It would 
appear to be a mistake to try to stamp it out, for there are no 
other out-of-door recreations that quite take its place. Such sport 
implies no intended cruelty. 



The /'rah, linn of Owr Native Birds. 19 

Yet undoubtedly such trapping and shooting is rapidly exter- 
minating some of our birds. Thus, a hundred and fifty years ago 
the brant geese were exceedingly abundant upon the Delaware 
River; now they never even stop there during their migrations., 
but in greatly lessened numbers make their first halt further to the 
south. The prairie chicken is now exterminated east of the Mis- 
sissippi River, except for a few left upon the Island of Martha's 
Vineyard ; and the canvasback duck is becoming scarce in the 
East. These are but indications of h<>\\ the number of all the 
larger game birds must be decreasing, and how total annihilation 
is to be expected unless a limit be placed upon the numbers that 
should be killed. 

Here we must distinguish between the good sportsman, who 
relishes the hunt, who does not wish to kill every bird within 
range, but respects the laws and is satisfied with a moderate bag, 
knowing that he has left sufficient birds to bring up broods in the 
next season; and the game-hog, as he is now called, whose chief 
aim is to kill more than anyone else, wdio means to discharge every 
cartridge he has, who in the absence of game wardens does not 
respect any laws, and who shoots birds because they are cheaper 
than clay pigeons. 

Then there is the still more numerous army of boys equipped 
with their first guns. To them, anything that flies is fair game, 
and shooting into a flock is honorable. Yet they are not to be 
blamed so much as their parents, who, to instigate a mistaken Idea 
of manliness, entrust youngsters with so destructive a weapon a 3 
a gun. At the outskirts of most of our country towns the small 
boy is always to be seen prowling around with bean-shooter, air- 
rifle, or gun. When one stops ^o compute how many small towns 
there are, how many small boys in each, how much leisure most 
of these boys have, one may well wonder how the birds maintain 
themselves as well as thev do. 

77. Destruction of F.ggs. 

Oceanic birds usually nest in large colonies of hundreds or 
thousands of individuals upon fringing reefs or rocky islands, 
often in localities that are quite accessible. At such places enor- 
mous destruction has been wrought by systematic egg hunters. 
Sometimes it has happened that a ship's crew, for mere amuse- 



20 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

merit, have landed and broken all the eggs in sight. Again, a 
regular business has been made of gathering eggs, with the hope 
of marketing them either as eggs or as oil or fertilizer. At various 
points along our Texas coast this has been done extensively, 
notably upon Padre Island, with the result of an awful carnage 
and little or no monetary profits for the undertaking; this par- 
ticular island, once the breeding ground of tens of thousands of 
gulls, pelicans and herons, is now almost bare of big birds. There 
has been similar carnage near San Francisco. By such means 
birds that nest in restricted localities become quickly exterminated. 
For, though the sea birds range far and wide in search cf food, 
and often take long periodical migrations, their nesting grounds 
are usually very limited in extent, so that he who enters them at 
the proper season has it in his power to destroy thousands cf indi- 
viduals in a day. To the eye of the ornithologist nothing is sadder 
than such depopulated islands and beaches. 

Inland birds do not nest in that manner, if we except colonies of 
crows, herons and fish hawks ; consequently, no hunting of eggs 
for market purposes is feasible there. But perhaps at least one 
out of four small country boys hunts for nests at some portion of 
his life, and I would be inclined to think that the number of birds 
killed in this way is greater than the number destroyed by full- 
grown sportsmen. Usually it is with the boy only an amuse- 
ment that lasts but a few years ; he collects eggs as he does post- 
age stamps ; he may blow them and "start a collection," or string 
them together, or use them as puerile wampum for exchange. 
But sooner or later the collection is discarded, the boy has learned 
thereby little or nothing about the birds, he has grown to value 
bird life very cheaply. 

The adult egg collector, or oologist as with a peculiar pride he 
styles himself, chooses a little more carefully, keeps his collections 
in good order, keeps full records, and endeavors to make accurate 
identifications — the latter frequently necessitating the shooting of 
the parent birds. The oologist generally desires complete sets of 
eggs of all the species that he can obtain, particularly of all those 
found in his neighborhood ; of the rarer ones he takes all he can 
secure, of the commoner ones all that are necessary to show tne 
range of color variations. In this he justifies himself bv saying 
that he is doing it "for scientific purposes," and the law usually 
allows him to do it "for scientific purposes." But what is he col- 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. VI 

lecting? Not really eggs, but merely empty egg shells, that miner- 
al covering of the true egg that least of all teaches of the bird and 
its life. He takes great pains to remove any trace of the embryo, in 
which the true scientist knows lies hound up all the secrets of 
development and heredity. A collection of embryos of our birds 
would be very valuable, because it could be made the basis of 
many explanations, but no oologist has made one, and trays full 
of empty egg shells have taught us almosl nothing. There is no 
scientific need of securing further great series of specimens to 
show every possible range of color and size, for we already know 
the number n\ eggs and their general color markings for the 
greater number of American birds; and yet this knowledge has 
given little of value to biological interpretation. There is abso- 
lutely no science in mere accumulation and description ; we need 
the explanation ; oologists have explained nothing, and they never 
will on the basis of empty shells. Ninety-nine out of every hun- 
dred oologists have no right whatsoever to the name of scientists. 
And to "collect eggs for scientific purposes" in the way they are 
doing it is a contradiction in terms and should be prohibited by 
law. The considerable number of dealers in the Qgg shells of 
birds attests how great this practice is, and hqw much money must 
be annually expended in it. 

Not only with every egg taken or nest despoiled is a bird 
killed, but further harm is done in the way of the adult birds' 
abandoning the locality where the tragedy happens. If the eggs 
are quite fresh, or even up to the time of hatching of the nest- 
lings, the parents in most birds will abandon the nest and move to 
another region, for the maternal instinct is usually at first weakest, 
and does not reach its maximum until the young are ready to 
leave the nest. Often the slightest disturbance of the nest, with- 
out removal of the eggs, will cause the parents to leave it. 

It is exceedingly difficult to secure even roughly approximate 
statistics in regard to the harm done -by the destruction of eggs. 
I believe no one has attempted to compute it. Rut it would be 
hardly an over-estimation to conclude that more harm is done 
in this way than by the sportsmen considered in the previous 
section. 

77/. Destruction for Millinery Purposes. 

A third most potent mode of destruction is killing to secure 
skins and feathers for wearing apparel. Certain peoples of Central 



22 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

Am erica used to make brilliant robes of the skins of humming- 
birds, hundreds of these tiny forms being necessary for one such 
covering. These were what we would call barbarous races. But 
the women of modern civilization are destroying far more birds 
than their savage predecessors. Look at the hats and bonnets in a 
church, or at an afternoon tea ; how many of them are without 
feathers of some description ? The modistes find it more econom- 
ical to use the natural bright feathers of wild birds than the dyed 
feathers of domestic ones, and, consequently, the wholesale killing 
of song birds to furbish hats. 

Reliable statistics ,on this kind of destruction were published 
some years ago by a special committee on the protection of birds,* 
from which a few extracts may be profitably quoted. "In an 
editorial on 'The Destruction of Small Birds,' published a short 
time since (March 6, 1884), occurs the following: 'We know, for 
example, of one dealer * * * who, during a three months' 
trip to the coast of South Carolina last spring, prepared no less 
than 11,018 bird skins. A considerable number of the birds killed 
were, of course, too much mutilated for preparation, so that the 
total number of the slain would be much greater than the number 
given. The person referred to states that he handles, on an aver- 
age, 30,000 skins per annum, of which the greater part are cut 
up for millinery purposes.' The same article in referring to the 
destruction of birds for millinery purposes on Long Island, states 
that during the short period of four months 70,000 were supplied 
to the New York dealers from a single village. An enter- 
prising woman from New York has contracted with a Paris mil- 
linery firm to deliver during the summer 40,000 or more skins 
of birds at 40c apiece. With several taxidermists she is carrying- 
out the contract, having engaged young and old to kill birds of 
different kinds, and paying them ten cents for each specimen not 
too much mutilated for millinery purposes. The same havoc 
has been wrought with the egrets and herons along our Southern 
shores, the statistics of which, could they be presented, would be 
of startling magnitude. We only know that colonies numbering 
hundreds, and even thousands, of pairs, have been simply anni- 
hilated — wholly wiped out of existence — in supplying the ex- 
haustless demand for egret, plumes. The heronries of Florida 



♦Destruction of Our Native Birds, Bull. No. 1. Committee on Protection of 
Birds, American Ornithologists Union, Science, supplement, 1886. 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

suffered first and most severely ; later the slaughter was extended 
to other portions of the Gulf coast. As an instance of the scale on 
which these operations yre earned,- it may be mentioned that one 
of our well-known ornithologists, while on an exploring tour in 
Texas, heard an agent of the millinery trade soliciting a sports- 
man to procure for him the plumes of [O,ooo white egrets. 
Advertisements in newspapers, by milliners, of the stock in hand, 
also give some suggestions of the traffic in wings and bird skins, 
it being not uncommon tc see thousands of wings (plain or fancy, 
in natural colors or deed), as well as thousands of bird skins 
(mounted or made up), and thousands of plumes (dyed or plain >, 
advertised by a single dealer, while the dealers themselves num- 
ber hundreds, if not thousands, in each of our larger cities. Add 
to these the smaller shops, in country and city, throughout the 
land, and we get at least some comprehension of the extent of the 
traffic in birds by the milliners, and the support they receive from 
the feminine portion of our population. Respecting the traffic 
abroad, we learn from an English authority that there were sold 
in one auction store in London, during the four months ending 
April. 1885, 404,464 West Indian and Brazilian bird skins, and 
356,389 Fast Indian, besides thousands of Impeyan pheasants 
and birds of paradise. In this country of 50,000,000 in hah 
itants [you will recall that I am quoting from the report of 
1886], half, or 25,000,000, may be said to belong to what someone 
has forcibly termed the 'dead-bird wearing gender,' of whom 
at least 10,000,000 are not only of the bird-wearing age. but — 
judging- from what we see on our streets, in public assemblies and 
public conveyances — also of bird-wearing proclivities. But 
let us say that these to,coo,ooo bird-wearers have but a single 
bird each, that these birds may be 'made over* so as to do service 
for more than a single season, and still what an annual sacrifice 
of bird life is entailed! Can it be placed at less than 5,000,000? — 
ten times more than the number of specimens extant in all our 
scientific collections, private and public together, and probably a 
thousand times greater than the annual destruction of birds (in- 
cluding also eggs) for scientific purposes." 

The report of this committee, of which T give only a few ex- 
tracts presents a terrible tale of havoc. The birds are desired by 
the milliners when they are brightest colored, that is during the 
breeding season, and they are then shot while the voting are left 



24 The Protection of Oar Native Birds. 

to starve in the nests. The aigrettes, so much prized by women, 
are the thread-like plumes or scapulars of various egrets and 
herons which the birds wtar for only a few weeks; in the midst 
of the nesting colony the old birds are shot down, these plumes 
plucked out, then the remainder of the bodies thrown away. Of 
smaller birds, often only the wings and tails are used. In France 
swallows have been caught in large numbers by means of fish- 
hooks baited with live insects, the birds dying in torture, in order 
that their skins may ad >rn hats. 

Though these statistics are appalling enough, such figures are 
very difficult to procure, because the milliners decline to furnish 
them ; but unquestionably far more birds are killed for dress than 
are represented in the numbers we have quoted. When these 
facts were' first made known, women became horror-stricken, and 
the destruction fell considerably in amount. But the horror seems 
to have passed away to great extent, or else the younger feminine 
generation seem to be unlearned in these matters, because, when- 
ever the edict goes forth from Paris or Vienna that birds be worn, 
they are being worn almost as numerously as ever before. A 
more heartless and thoughtless slaughter could not well be 
devised. 

C. Means of Protection of Birds. 

It is the well-founded opinion of both sportsmen and natural- 
ists, those most competent to judge, that our native birds are all of 
them decreasing in number with ominous rapidity. It is also the 
decision of all who have specially studied the matter that such ex- 
termination should be prevented on account of the important prac- 
tical importance of birds to agriculture. If this killing is allowed 
to proceed at its present rate, within a relatively short period all 
the native birds will be gone from the more cultivated districts, 
and only in the more maccessibie localities can they continue to 
survive — a loss that will be to the immediate detriment of the 
fanner. This is in no way a hasty conclusion, it is an obvious 
inference from the plain facts of the case. It is much the same 
question with regard to birds as with the forests : the latter must' 
be replanted as they are cut down if we would save our wood, 
preserve our water supply and prevent disastrous floods ; the 
birds must be protected if we would save our crops and pastures. 
And, as in so manv other matters, a stitch in time saves nine. 



The Protection of Out Native Birds. 25 

This leads us to examine into the more efficacious methods of 
protecting' birds. 

In the very first place, there must be a spread of accurate 
knowledge concerning the practical value of the birds, and espe- 
cially among the farmers. The average farmer has come by the 
idea, and has scarcely modified it, that the majority of birds work 
a direct injury to him, and that all in his fields and orchards 
should be shot. Because the farmers compose the must numerous 
class, information given to them will insure the best results. The 
National Department of Agriculture and the various State Boards 
are at great expense," and under the direction of skilled natural- 
ists, publishing and distributing circulars ; but the drawback is 
that farmers are slow to pay attention to these sources of informa- 
tion, or are skeptical as to their accuracy. 

Yet once this conservative farmer-class can be brought to see 
the facts in the right lighf, and fortunately they are beginning to, 
two good results will surely follow : first, they themselves will 
cease to kill birds; and second, and this will have greater and 
more profound effects, tney will keep others from shooting upon 
their lands. Some dav, let us hope, the farmers will no more 
allow the killing of wild birds than they will allow the killing of 
their poultry by others. The great difficulty in enforcing laws for 
protection is the lack of game wardens, but each farmer would 
gladly constitute himself a protector of birds when he is brought 
to see that is for his own best interests ; and the greater extent of 
our continent is inhabited by farmers. Common-sense talks 
before farmers' granges and before the meetings of ranchmen, 
may prove more efficacious than printed matter. In regard to the 
bulletins on the subject written by experts, it should be seen to 
that these really reach the farmers for whom they are intended, 
instead of being consigned to the waste-paper baskets of con- 
gressmen. Indeed, our legislators could give very important aid 
by the wise distribution of such matter, were they only better ac- 
quainted with the urgency of the situation. 

In the second place, the boys of the country should be readied 
by both persuasion and coercion. One of the best methods of ac- 
complishing this has been found to be the presentation of nature 
study courses in the primary schools, courses that directly awaken 
the children's interest in the bird life around them. The success 
depends lo large extent upon the teacher's enthusiasm and ear- 



2G The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

nestness in the matter. Instead of shooting birds and robbing 
nests, the boys may be readily led to organize bird societies and 
learn to protect them from the interest they find in their habits, 
care of the young, and migrations. Boys always show an in- 
terest in the periodical movements of birds, and are easily in- 
fluenced to keep records of observations on the times of the 
arrivals and departures oi migrants ; teach them such interesting 
sides of the question, as well as the cruelty of bird killing. Get 
one influential boy interested in the subject, and he will quickly 
see to it that in his community nest-robbing ceases. 

As in all education, so here, too, the greater part should lie with 
the parents. The numerous Nature Study books now being pub- 
lished are often very inaccurate and fanciful ; most of them 
are fairy stories rather than natural histories ; but they are doing 
the general reading public much good in teaching respect for 
birds and a feeling of friendship for them, and this is a great 
point gained. Before long, let us hope, educated parents will 
purchase note books for their sons rather than guns. 

It would be chimerical in the face of the common sentiment 
in the matter to attempt to abolish shooting for sport ; hunting is 
an instinct too deeply implanted within us.. But the number of 
birds to be classed as game should be narrowly limited, and here 
should be reckoned only the swans, ducks, geese, rails and coots, 
snipe, sandpipers, plover, grouse, quail, partridge and turkey. The 
wild pigeons or doves should never be classed as game birds, 
they shouid be rigorously protected on account of their invaluable 
services as weed destroyers; and the field larks and bob-whites 
(quail) should be taken off the game list in agricultural commu- 
nities. The open season for all should be short, as far as possi- 
ble uniform in the different States, and above all there should be 
no open season in the spring and summer when the birds are re- 
turning to their nesting grounds to reproduce the individuals of 
the next generation. One is unwise to kill the bird that lays the 
golden eggs. The game-hog must be denounced and downed, 
and to accomplish this a mode in use for the protection of game 
fish should be employed : that is, the breach of the game law 
being punishable by fines, to pay the amount of the fine to the 
informer. Members of shooting clubs would do well to make 
it a condition of membership, that every member should report to 
the proper authorities any breach of a game law; done in this 



The Protection of Owr Native Birds'. 27 

way it would become a righteous act and no odium would attach 
to the informer. Laws for the more rigid protection of game 
work no injustice; they are, on the contrary, of necessity in that 
they preserve the game from season to season. Every true sports- 
man acknowledges this, and the movement for the protection of 
birds started in this country in the columns of a Sporting paper, 
the "Forest and Stream." If one would have good shooting from 
year to year one must simply limit the size of the game bag. and 
see that others do the same; and the more the human population 
increases, the greater the number of sportsmen becomes, the 
shorter should become the open season for game. 

But for market shooting there should be no open season. We 
no longer rely upon wild animals for our food, and the variety of 
cattle and poultry raised for the purpose gives us a sufficient vari- 
ety of meats without the need of sales of game in the markets. 
It is well known that market gunners make only a poor living, 
so that to deprive them of their occupation would not be a hard- 
ship to them; for it would compel them to undertake a more lucra- 
tive employment. The best method of combatting market shoot- 
ing is by the prevention, by the Lacey Act, of the shipping of 
game from State to State, and from county to county. 

Most of the States have game laws, and a considerable number, 
including Texas, have also adopted the model game law protect- 
ing also non-game birds. But a law is powerful only in so far as 
it can be enforced, and over the greater part of our land there 
are no game wardens. We have already pointed out how the 
farmers may be instituted our most efficient game wardens. A 
primary principle in such laws is the recognition that birds are 
not the property of the individual but of the State, because they 
are free gifts of Nature. But perhaps it would be more correct 
to class them, as the rivers, as National rather than State prop- 
erty; and for the reason that most of our native birds are migra- 
tory in habit, nesting to be sure in particular localities, but in the 
Fall and Sprint; passing along the continent. Such birds are 
therefore denizens of the whole extent of country that tfiey trav- 
erse, consequently national. This principle is fully recognized in 
Great Britain, where a man may not shoot on* his own preserve 
out of season. A national system of game laws would be for the 
best interests of the sportsmen, and its framing could be safelv 



28 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

entrusted to the Biological Survey of the Department of Agricul- 
ture. 

Everywhere our public libraries could give important help in 
the matter of protection, by placing accessibly upon their shelves 
that admirable magazine "Bird-Lore," now the official organ of 
the Audubon Society, the better of the Nature Study books, and 
the reports of the Biological Survey and the Audubon Society. 

Then the wearing of the plumage of wild birds must be 
stopped. It has been found that it cannot be done in moderation, 
therefore it must be prohibited altogether. It will not do to pro- 
hibit the killing of our American birds and to allow the impor- 
tation of foreign ones, for this would be injuring another country, 
and in the long run, for the sake of greater cheapness, would 
result in the killing of cur native species. The consumer's taste 
decides what the market shall be. and milliners offer feathers for 
sale only when there is a demand for them. It is a hard task to 
try to change the tastes of those women that follow the dictates 
of fashion regardless of consequences. But an appeal to thought- 
ful and sensitive women must accomplish good, when it insists 
upon the tremendous loss of life and suffering entailed. It should 
be taught to each uprising generation, for the daughters seem 
to forget what the mothers leaned. Nature Study courses for 
the girls as well as for the boys can do much good. The wear- 
ing of ostrich feathers is of course allowable. But the wearing 
of chicken feathers is not to be encouraged, because the milliner 
has found it cheaper to secure the bright plumage of a wild bird 
than to dye the feathers of fowls. 

Then the English sparrow is to be killed on all possible occa- 
sions for the injury it dees to the grain crops as well as for its 
attacks upon native birds. Had we them out of our towns our 
trees would be filled with native songsters.. Every sparrow is 
not an English sparrow, however, and in killing the latter one 
should have sufficient acquaintance with the beneficial wild spar- 
rows to avoid destroying them. A systematic destruction of nests 
of the English sparrow has been shown to give the most lasting 
results. 

These are a few suggestions on the means of protection that 
seem to offer the best outcome. It is not an easy thing to accom- 
plish and a long campaign must be made against ignorance and 
thoughtlessness. First and foremost the interest of the farmers 



The Protection of Our Native Birds. 29 

must be gained, and their services enlisted. Second, the school 
children must be reached. For success there must be organized 
movement, especially hearty and vigorous co-operation with the 
main organizations already in existence-. The principal ones are 
the Biological Survey at Washington, always ready to furnish 
information and give assistance; and the National Association of 
Audubon Societies, with its offices at 525 Manhattan Ave., New 
York city, which is at the head of the hundreds of Audubon So- 
cieties scattered throughout the country. It is a movement that 
does not call for much expense but rather the application of good 
common sense. 

D. Literature. 

For those who may be interested in following the subject to 
greater length, the following list of works is presented, that rep- 
resents some of the larger and more important contributions. 

Weed and Dearborn, Birds in Their Relations to Man. A Man- 
ual of Economic Ornithology for the United States and Canada. 
Philadelphia, Lippincott Co., 1903. 

Bailey, Handbook of Birds of- the Western United States, 
Boston, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1902. 

Bird-Lore, monthly organ of the Audubon Society, The Mac- 
Millan Co., New York City. 

Destruction of Our Native Birds, Bulletin No. 1 of the Com- 
mittee on Protection of Birds, Science, supplement, 1886. 

Game Laws in Brief, Forest and Stream Publishing Co., N. Y. 

Lange, Our Native Birds, How to Protect Thau and Attract 
Them to Our Homes, MacMillan Co., N. Y., 1899. 

Publications of the Biological Surrey, U. S. Department of 
Agriculture. 

Merriam and Barrows, The English Sparrow in America, Bull. 
No. 1, 1889. 

Palmer, Legislation for the Protection of Birds Other Than 
Game Birds, Bull. No. 12, 1902. 

Fisher, The Hawks and Owls of the United States in Their Re- 
lation to Agriculture, Bull. No. 3, 1893. 

Beal, Food of Woodpeckers, Bull. No. 7, 1895. 

Beal, Food of Bobolink, Blackbirds and Crackles, Bull. No. 13. 
1900. 



30 The Protection of Our Native Birds. 

Beal, Some Common Birds in Their Relation to Agriculture, 
Farmers' Bull. No. 54, 1897. 

Beal, Crow Blackbirds and Their Food, Yearbook for 1894. 
Beal, The Meadowlark and Baltimore Oriole, Yearbook for 

1895. 

Beal, The Blue Jay and Its Food, Yearbook for 1896. 

Beal, Birds That Injure Grain, Yearbook for 1897. 

Beal, How Birds Affect the Orchard, Yearbook for 1900. 

Beal, The Food of Cuckoos, Bull. No. 9, 1898. 

Beal, The Food of Nestling Birds, Yearbook for 1900. 

Fisher, Hawks and Owls from the Standpoint of the Fanner, 
Yearbook for 1894. 

Judd, Four Common Birds of the Farm and Garden, Yearbook 
for 1895. 

Judd, The Food of Shrikes, Bull. No. 9. 

Judd, The Relation of Sparrows to Agriculture, Bull. No. 15. 

Palmer, A Reviezv of Economic Ornithology in the United 
States, Yearbook for 1899. 

Barrows and Schwartz, The Common Crozv, Bull. No. 6, 1895. 

Judd, Birds of a Maryland Farm, a Local Study of Economic 
Ornithology. Bull. No. 17. 

Palmer, The- Danger of Introducing Noxious Animals and 
Birds, Yearbook, 1899. 

Judd, Birds as Weed Destroyers, Yearbook, 1898. 

Howell, Birds that eat the Cotton Boll Weevil, Bull. No. 25, 
1906. 

Hornaday, The Destruction of Our Birds and Mammals, 2nd 
annual report, New York Zoological Society. 

Warren, Report oh the Birds of Pennsylvania, 2nd ed. Har- 
risburg, 1890. 

Report of the National Association of Audubon Societies, 
1905 (to be obtained from 525 Manhattan Ave., New York City). 



APR 8 l y07 




003 422 095 5 



